Michelle Manhart Poses for Playboy

Posted 20/03/2007 at 1:28am felix suman

u deserve it htere nothing wrong in firing u out nice thing other people will think twice before doing this thing

Posted 20/03/2007 at 8:23am Allan Smith

It is within the Air Force's best interest to give an appearance of being ethical and disciplined in all matters.

What this female did was to not only profane ( make common ) the uniform of the Air Force but she also made common her own body.

What she did has been documented here on Orato as "objectifying" herself. She also played into the hands of others, such as Hugh Heffner and others of his ilk who have been made rich by the objectification of women. She further willingly exposed herself to that which will upset so many other women who loath being viewed as a sex object. This female soldeier willingly put herself in a position where men INTERNATIONALLY will view her as a sex object. There are other countries who see such objectification of women as being objectionable and morally wrong and will associate this woman with her uniform and with the US Air Force and with the general perception of the USA as being a nation caught in the convulsions of moral decay.

No man ( nor woman ) is an island.

Here's an opportunity for Orato editors and readers to express their shock that this woman would willingly objectify herself. It would contribute greatly to this forum if women internationally would speak up to this woman who's willingly participated in the objectification of women, thus devaluing and de-humanizing all women in the eyes of men internationally. Any woman who has a sincere objection to the objectification of women should jump right in here and let this "model" know what they think of how she has represented her gender so thoughtlessly and carelessly.

I'm betting they won't do it.

Posted 20/03/2007 at 8:52am Allan Smith

Heather stated "I think Michelle Manhart is a brave, strong woman. Too good for the military, which apparently subscribes to the same moral code as Bible Belt America."

Tho I've seen evidence to the contrary, I would say that if they'd "subscribe to the same moral code as Bible Belt America", it would be an improvement and a good thing.

It wouldn't surprise me if the military ( and/or its representatives ) handled some or all of her dismissal wrong ( after all, look at what happened to Michael New ... http://www.mikenew.com/ ) but the right thing to do with any soldier ( male or female, enlisted or officer ) who poses naked in a magazine which is known for it's overtly sexually explicit depictions and sexually immoral content is to demote and discharge that person.

By her ego-centric actions, she has devalued herself by making her private beauty a common-place item in the lives of many people internationally, she has dishonored the Air Force and dishonored the American Flag and the USA. People internationally have heard of her posing and she has, by her actions, brought shame to the Air Force and to the USA.

Shame, like Beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder and there are now people internationally who've been given renewed occasion to look with shame on America and it's moral condition.

It's a sad commentary on the condition of the hearts and minds of americans when they no longer know real shame and who deny its validity and importance in the moral fiber of a nation.

Posted 20/03/2007 at 1:38pm Brian Jackson

As a former Army officer, I support Michelle's stance. The fact that she did everything above board and even went as far as to prepare her chain of command for potential media attention shows her professionalism.

The question is not whether her actions were immoral, but rather if they were illegal according to Air Force regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Furthermore, was her punishment (even if it was in accordance with legalities, which it does not seem to meet) fair and equitable when comparing it to other infractions? How does the Air Force respond to the inequality of male modeling in similar circumstances? Apparently it doesn't at all. Instead the chain of command chooses to ignore it altogether hoping this issue goes away.

By making an example of Michelle Manhart, the Air Force (and de facto the military as a whole) hopes to discourage future behavior of this type without specifically addressing the question. Is it illegal? I'm afraid that without congressional support, Michelle will get the proverbial screw. It's a shame that such a model servicemember (model...no pun intended...lol) should be held to a different standard.

My support for Michelle is unwavering. Having seen the photos, I did not identify anything that disrespected the uniform, the armed services, or the country. I did not see anything that disrespected women, NCOs, or the human body in general. It's not like she posed in an explicit spread in a magazine of different taste (such as "Hustler"). Is Michelle's modeling while on active duty immoral, because her breasts were exposed? Maybe in your opinion, but art is art. UCMJ is not based on opinion, but unfortunately few that matter seem to care. I suppose that community showers (which still exist in the military today) are also immoral, according to this new precedence.

I encourage others that support Ms. Manhart to write her Congressional delegates (Iowa). It's the only hope she will have in getting true justice. She may get fame and fortune, but her service to our nation has been disrespected. Fame and fortune can't buy that respect back.

blog.myspace.com/two2fly

Posted 20/03/2007 at 1:42pm jesse adams

I am ex air force myself, and I was released early because I had problems with depression and suicide. Instead of the air force helping me, like they held many base wide briefings about saying so, they instead tried to threaten me with 10 years jail time, and possible treason convictions because I refused to go on a deployment. The point I try to make here is that the air force is always double standardizing all of their rules. The UCMJ is full of judicial wild cards, a domino effect. If you are charged with one article of the UCMJ, the way it is structured, you can and most likely will be hit with another article.

During my time in the air force, I never heard of any rules explaining without question of what you could and could not do off duty.

The air force is all about wanting you to excel, but only WITHIN the air force. She followed her dreams and all anything some people can say is that she is unpatriotic, or she has set women in the military back 10 years or more for posing in playboy.

I remember I was in Iraq for a few months, and a female army soldier and female air force airman were busted in a prostitution ring. They charged the other sex starved soldiers for sex. This is a seriously worse offense than simply posing nude in playboy. What happened to them? They were discharged I imagine, but why was there no media spectacle of these 2 females? If you ask me, that stunt would be more along the lines of setting females in the military back as opposed to posing nude for playboy. Something millions of woman want to do, and lot's do amateurishly in their own homes.

Posted 20/03/2007 at 2:17pm Stefanie Hinson

Michelle happens to be one of my good friends. I support her and I know firsthand what she has gone through. I refuse to not stand behind one of my friends that has stood behind me. From the very beginning I have stood behind her and not wavered in my dedication to my friend and I never will.

I don't feel what she did was wrong, she's beautiful and she was blessed to be offered the opportunity of a life time. Good for her, follow your dreams girl. I stand behind you no matter what. I wish more people would stand up for themselves and follow their dreams.

I've read the other comments posted and I just have to say this, I'm sorry we don't all live in the freaking bible belt of America, but it's people (Women) like Michelle that have fought for you to have the freedom to practice the religion of your choice. Another beautiful thing about this country is we all don't have to believe the same things, that's another freedom Michelle helped fight for. I think we're missing the big picture here, Michelle has fought (in places most people would never go, let alone willingly go) and has never complained yet she's not allow the same freedoms she's fought for the civilians of this great nation to have. I'm sorry but that's just wrong anyway you try to slice it up and sell it to me that's just wrong. You may not agree with what Michelle did and that is your freedom to do (also, a freedom Michelle fought for), but it's her choice and her life not yours and not yours to judge her. She never stood and judged you before she decided to go defend your freedoms she just did it and never asked why. So, why can't we do the same for her?

If you have a problem with what she did then my suggestion to you would be either go to your local recruiter and do your part to help defend your freedoms that you so comfortably live under and judge under or shut the HELL up and live your life and we will live ours..............

I will stand beside her and not judge. She is a fellow airman and always will be. She's a woman who stood up for herself and her freedoms (that she fought for).

Posted 20/03/2007 at 3:14pm Allan Smith

Our country is increasingly and selfishly preoccupied with one's presumed rights.

Too few in our respective nations have been adequately taught of their responsibilities.

Fewer yet realize that no American nor Canadian has a guaranteed right to be able to practice anything immoral.

Teachers and parents and society have failed for decades now to impart to their youth an accurate understanding of rights and privileges and, most importantly, responsibilities and accountability.

Where-in efforts have ben made to impart ethics and morality, there have been a growing number of our societies who have taken it upon themselves to define their own sense of morality, have indulged in learning and fighting for their rights, have little or no understanding of either their responsibility to others and a sense of accountability to any higher moral authority.

Michelle is not alone in crossing a moral line with her conduct. No soldier has any right to commit any immoral act.

She is accountible to the Air Force.

She has a responsibility to not do anything which will reflect poorly on the Air Force or any of its members.

And I'm going to bet that when she did the photo shoot she had a very personal inner knowledge that she was taking a risk and that there might be consequences, either with family members, friends and especially the military ... and I'll bet she thought about the possibility of consequences and people's reactions and she went ahead and did the photo shoot anyway. It's not like she should be surprised. I'll bet she's known of other situations in which the military acted in a manner with which she disagreed fully !! It's not like every act of discipline she's known about met with her approval. It's not like she's seen other discipline situations dealt with harshly and/or unfairly. She's a big girl with years of experience. I'm betting she spit into the wind and dared it to blow it back in her face and now, instead of sucking it up like she's been trained to do with military hardship, she's crying to the public for sympathy. That act alone is one she knows well enough to be ashamed of, if she's any soldier at all.

Posted 20/03/2007 at 3:37pm Maria Diaz

Below I have cut and pasted a copy of my husband's (that has also posted a comment here) blog as well as my response to that.

As a former Army officer, I support Michelle's stance. The fact that she did everything above board and even went as far as to prepare her chain of command for potential media attention shows her professionalism.

The question is not whether her actions were immoral, but rather if they were illegal according to Air Force regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Furthermore, was her punishment (even if it was in accordance with legalities, which it does not seem to meet) fair and equitable when comparing it to other infractions? How does the Air Force respond to the inequality of male modeling in similar circumstances? Apparently it doesn't at all. Instead the chain of command chooses to ignore it altogether hoping this issue goes away.

By making an example of Michelle Manhart, the Air Force (and de facto the military as a whole) hopes to discourage future behavior of this type without specifically addressing the question. Is it illegal? I'm afraid that without congressional support, Michelle will get the proverbial screw. It's a shame that such a model servicemember (model...no pun intended...lol) should be held to a different standard.

My support for Michelle is unwavering. Having seen the photos, I did not identify anything that disrespected the uniform, the armed services, or the country. I did not see anything that disrespected women, NCOs, or the human body in general. It's not like she posed in an explicit spread in a magazine of different taste (such as "Hustler"). Is Michelle's modeling while on active duty immoral, because her breasts were exposed? Maybe in your opinion, but art is art. UCMJ is not based on opinion, but unfortunately few that matter seem to care. I suppose that community showers (which still exist in the military today) are also immoral, according to this new precedence.

I encourage others that support Ms. Manhart to write her Congressional delegates (Iowa). It's the only hope she will have in getting true justice. She may get fame and fortune, but her service to our nation has been disrespected. Fame and fortune can't buy that respect back.


12:43 PM - 2 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment


maria


This will be old news for you Brian, but I will inform anyone that may wish to read your blog.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your stance on this situation. While I was not comissioned in the Army, I still have very strong opinions and especially so from an enlisted standpoint. I can be very honest in saying that what Michelle Manhart did is and should be detrimental to her career. Michelle Manhart isn't someone that has been victimized or taken advantage of. That is her skew. Michell Manhart is someone that wanted to push the limits to see what she could get away with. The fact that she "prepared" her command for the media frenzy, doesn't tell me she was being responsible, it tells me that she knew she would get in trouble and only hoped to lessen her punishment by jumping the gun and telling them before they found out. This is rudimentary and can be seen first hand by children when they do something wrong.

I have put my self in one of her soldiers shoes and can say that my respect for her would be less as a result of these pics. You know that I am a very liberal type with certain issues, and had she been someone off the street doing this it would be fine. She was a leader, and mentor to young impressionable soldiers. You know how the military is, no matter what, people are going to be talking about her, and not in a positive light. And let's take this in to consideration (regardless if it is wrong or right, it happens); she put herself "out there" , imagine her in a combat zone, where traditionally the male to female ratio is 50-75:1. And now imagine horny guys that haven't been laid in a while that are really " hungry"......You know where I am going with that. Not only has she just modeled nude, but she has been objectified and could have potentially been thrust into a high sexual tension situation. I have been deployed before, I know how that is. I also do not believe " that the girl was raped because she was wearing a short skirt". I think that this exposure could have been a catalyst for some very bad things.

On a personal note, you are Mr. Army, Captain Jackson, patriot and so on....... With the world views of America's military being what they are, do we really need more soldiers like Michell Manhart showing how "out of control" we are?

If I was her, I would have completly expected the puishment that she got. She said "it was a life long dream to pose in Playboy". Well clearly she prioritized that being a Plaboy One Hit Wonder was more important than her military career. I think she should quit crying.




Posted by maria on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 2:06 PM
[Reply to this]



maria


Oh, and BTW, why is it her Myspace profile titled "Michelle Manhart-Playboy Model" instead of "Michelle Manhart- Air Force Sergeant" ?

You say the Military is trying to make an example of her, but don't you think she is trying to make an example of the military?

She is riding it for what it's worth. Had she been sooo concerned, she wouldn't be doing all of these interviews, publicity meetings/viewings. Once she realized that it didn't look good for her career, she should have taken a few steps back.

Nevermind, that Playboy took advantage of her and her career for their profits. Playboy had to have known this was going to create a firestorm of media. And it did. But as whose expense?

Posted 20/03/2007 at 3:45pm Steve Cunningham

I think many of the negative comments expressed here express an opinion based on personal morality-. intermingled with a misguided belief that such things should equate to law. First things first, regardless of your opinion of Michelle's actions or your moral stance you should at least recognize that your right to expression is a part of the very freedom in question. As you support decisions that tread over that freedom, you may well be treading over the very thing that affords you the legal grounds to engage in such discussions (whether of a religious, political, or personal nature.) As Americans we must always remember that freedom of expression.... is not something that has been afforded to all of mankind and may not always be for us. Our way of life exists because we as well as Americans before us, collectively believed in and or struggled to preserve it. This way of life exists in part due to people like Michelle... people that believe and fight for a better world for all of us. The beauty of the ideology behind our freedom and inalienable rights, is that they are not supposed to be for a select few, but for all of us. You have the right to think what you want of Michelle and her actions... you can support her or not. These are your rights and you are protected under the laws of our nation to express them freely. As I've read through some of these comments I have to admit I am disappointed. When the system, which supports our very freedom, is used to unjustly devalue one of our best and brightest- it is a criminal act. When Americans support such acts it is tragic. When a victim is persecuted and criminals are revered we as Americans all lose. Unlike your right to expression nobody has an inalienable right to circumvent the law. Michelle I am sorry that you have to be at the center of such a tragic set of circumstances. While the government and some fellow American's have turned their backs on you... just know the people that matter most will always be by your side. Keep up the fight- you have my support!

Posted 20/03/2007 at 4:16pm Charles St.Denis

The real resone Michelle is any type of trouple is because she is a beautiful woman who happen to be in the Air Force and The higher ups could not let go of there own personal beleafs and since of moral self.

Michelle Manhart was being made a poster child for the Air Force. Her time on duty is remarkable and something any person man or woman should try to be like. Her choice to be in PlayBoy did not interfear with her daily duties.

The Military suports Playboy because it's a clean adult Mag. It's not naked girls from cover to cover. No Smut or volgerness. It's got maybe 25 to 30 pages total of adult content the rest of the 200+ pages are info on anything and everything.

To those of you who say that what Michelle did was disrespectful to the Military, the Air Force, Or America I tell you to look at the layout and see if still feel that way. It was very Clean and respectful.

I know guys that are going to go into the Air Force After seeing Michelle's Layout because of her. The Air Force shouldn't be mad they should let her do another layout.

The Military has a very old world look on things and are not willing to see that the world has changed and that they should change to.

Michelle if you read this you have done nothing wrong. Your Life is going to go places you never thought they would. I think you should get out of the Air Force do another layout bigger and better then go to the WWE.

Posted 20/03/2007 at 4:19pm Maria Diaz

Referencing Michelle's Friend's Comment:


For the record, I think that your assumption that everyone reading this post is non-military shows your narrow-mindness. I am a former Army soldier and a woman . I did my part. I served my country. I served oversees to fight and protect our country and our freedoms. I still disagree with what she did. You can't say that those who disagree are simply people who sit on their asses everyday and watching from the side lines, watching the news criticizing our military. I have been there.

Furthermore, I am not judging her character based upon these pictures. She chose to be a Playboy Playmate over an Air Force Sergeant. She doesn't seem to be stupid, so you can't tell me that she didn't see this coming. She just wanted to push the envelope. (See my original posting.)

P.S. I am also a women's libber, so you figure out why I disagree.

Posted 20/03/2007 at 6:04pm Michelle Pittman

I have been a friend of Michelle's for more than half my life. I have grown up with her and I honor her as my friend. She is an incredible wife, mother and friend. Professional, Michelle is an amazing TI in our nation's Air Force. Being a woman myself, I am actually appalled at some of the comments I read here and from people I talk to. Most seem to revolve around the notion that people think Michelle chose posing for Playboy over her career, that she chose to do this solely for her own benefit and that she should have known what was coming. Do you forget the fact that Michelle gave 13 years of her life to her country - OUR country. 13 years is a lot to give for someone who is just barely over the age of 30. Not only did she choose this career of defending her nation and its freedoms, she has worked the past several years training this country's air men and women - a feat not many enlisted have the opportunity to do. She took her new assignment with unwavering confidence and did a fine job at it. Not once was her service mocked nor her duty to her career nor her ability to fight for our freedom questioned until she continued to follow her dream. I saw the pictures, I read the articles and I continue to believe in Michelle Manhart. I am not offended for what I read or saw and I do not feel she harmed our country or our Air Force in any way. I am not concerned that the 13 years she gave this country might not have been good enough. I continue to believe that Michelle will fight for all of our rights and freedoms in this country. I trust her with my life and with the lives of everyone I know. She posed for this article nearly one year ago and in the time it took to print she did not lose focus of her career, she did not stop training or instructing her recruits, she did not falter in her abilities to work hard and instill value and honor and discipline in those same recruits. Bottom line is the number of recruits she has trained who continue to fight for this country and in no way did she deface our military or choose to be a Playboy Playmate over a Air Force Sergeant. She did not stop being a TI while following her dreams. She is an amazing woman ith the ability to do both! She has gained a new found respect for following her dreams and not dropping her career oreverything she has worked her entire adult life for.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 1:19am Bill Hudley

Respect is a relative attitude. In my view, some of the arguments in this forum raise a couple of interesting issues. I think the most important one is the distinction between being a military personnel and a civilian. I believe most Americans today haven't a clue about the premise of uniform codes in the armed forces worldwide. The military concept is based on discipline. As an officer, I was never a career soldier; however, I was commissioned to train my subordinates to remember their status, both in and out of uniform. In that sense, I believed I was special and so did the members of my company. We were all indoctrinated that our careers as dentists, architects, bankers and schoolteachers had to wait until each respective tour of duty was completed; and we understood why. Enough about that.

The second issue is that I also disregard the assumptions that some us have not been on the military front at one time or another. The importance of joining the armed forces to support our views on this topic is negligible. However, the idea of serving our country is quite different, once you have had the experience. In addition to that, there are men and women defending our country today who are bringing a whole new meaning to the term, "serving". Let us remember to give them the recognition they deserve.

Finally, It isn't necessary to corroborate this speculation, but I would venture that Air Force Sergeant Manhart did not divulge her earlier attempts for the Playboy opportunity to her superiors. I got the impression that her ostensible "preparation" was more like, "Oh, by the way..."

Clearly, this case flew head-on into the winds of military conventions and the morality of our society. The controversy is somewhat disquieting.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 8:42am Allan Smith

Part of what is missed in this whole discussion is what rights / freedoms really are.

People have the right / freedom to do right. Their rights are limited to those things which are moral. Their freedoms are limited to those things which are moral.

Steven mentioned our inalienable rights but neglected to mention that those rights were given to us by our Moral Creator.

That Creator did not give us the right to act imorally. That Creator did not give us freedom to do immorally.

Our soldiers are not fighting and/or dying so that we can be free to lie, murder, cheat, steal, commit adultery and spread lies about our neighbor.

Our soldiers, past and present, are not fighting for us to have the freedom to blow up buildings or mercilessly beat prostitutes or pro-life advocates.

Some respondents to this article are so loosely and disrespectfully throwing around the word "rights" and "freedom" as tho they were all-encompassing and without bounds.

Such comments reflect a woeful ignorance of what "rights" and "freedoms" really are.

Rights and freedoms are firmly grounded on morality. When you deny or destroy the moral foundation of a country ( or yourself ) you pervert righs into selfishness and freedoms become licentiousness.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 9:12am Maria Diaz

I think there is one key element that a lot of people are missing. And the general public may not even realize this if they have never served in the military. Part of serving our country and defending OUR rights as Americans means that you must give up some of YOUR rights once you join/are commissioned. If the military didn't have a more strict set of rules and expect their personnel to be held to a different or even higher set of values (not necessarily saying that Michelle doesn't posess them) how different would the military be from the civilian world. And then we could have every Tom, Dick, and Harry acting however they wanted to. What kind of organization is that? How organized is it really? How much structure is there?? Is that the kind of military YOU want defending OUR counrty?

Some of the issues we have now in the military are as a result of lower standards for the types of people that come in. This of course is a result of the lack people joining.


Everyone wants to talk about Michelle's right for expression while she is in the military, but when you start to unravel the very foundations and principals on which the United States Military were founded, you have to ask yourself, At what point does it stop?

Lets move on to tattoos, piercings, slanderous/ discrimenating clothing, and unusual hair styles/colorings...... All of theses things are forms of expression as well, different from what Michelle did, but at the same time similar. The line has to be drawn somewhere, folks.

Would it be appropriate for The President of The United States to pose nude, tasteful or not? How about the Air Force Chief of Staff? You think that he would be relieved of his duties? You had better bet your ass on it. Now tell me why should Michell Manhart should be the exception?

Posted 21/03/2007 at 9:22am Maria Diaz

Brian Jackson is my husband, and as you can see through out the string that we disagree to some extent. In the military there are sometimes vague rules and regulations because you cannot possibly cover all things and scenarios. They are there to maintain order and discipline. What she has done may not be "illegal" by the legal system outside of the military, but within the military judicial system she has done something that has not been specifically defined as "wrong". However, she was not a civillian at the time of these photos, and she subject to Military UCMJ as opposed regular law. Unfortunately for her they dealt with her as the deemed appropriate under those codes.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 10:14am Brian Jackson

The difference between Michelle's behavior and forms of expression such as tattoos, faddish haircuts, piercings, and slanderous clothing is the delineation of what is legal and what is not. Regulations specifically spell out what is proper with respect to a servicemember's appearance. What Michelle did is not banned in a regulation or in the UCMJ. So why did she get punished as if it was. It was a subjective punishment based on personal opinion. Perhaps she should have received some sort of retribution..perhaps by demonstrating a lack of judgment. I can play devil's advocate in that sense. But she was put on par with far worse transgressions. The inequality is quite clear.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 10:34am Allan Smith

Heather Wallace stated "Clearly this is a case of morality police. "

I'm betting that Heather is part of the morality police. I'm betting she believes it's wrong for a pedophile to prey on young children. She would have no problem being on a jury who finds pedophile guilty of provable charges.

I'm betting further that if her b/f, lover, spouse were to be out "fooling around", she'd take exception to that. I'm betting she'd consider such "fooling around" to be ... um ... _wrong_ !!

She just hasn't caught on yet that in doing so, she would be imposing her morality on that person and would risk identifying herself with these apparently disdained "morality police".

What I find both amusing on the one hand and yet of great concern on the other is that she uses that term "morality police" in such a negative way, as tho any one who takes a moral stand or any who would dare state the importance of morality ( for the peace of a society ) is somehow worthy of disdain.

Most people who presume to be the final authority in their own morality end up imposing THEIR morality on others by their actions, as well as their words. This is an interesting hypocricy.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 3:02pm Maria Diaz

My reply to you Brian is that ( as I have stated in an earlier posting) some of these regulations are up for interpretation. You know as I do that You don't necessarily have to BE wrong as long as you are perceived to be wrong; sometimes thats all that matters. There might not have been a regulation, but there probably will be soon. This might have had a different outcome had it not been so publicized. Transgressions can typically be brushed under the rug when they are kept on a close local level. However, This "transgression" was nationally and internationally publicized. Forcing them to take action. Also, If the regs are so vague, how come more women don't pose in Playboy or are strippers that are in the military? You could argue that stripping and posing nude are two seperate animals but I beg to differ. Both scenarios rely on a woman/man to expose them self. Bottom line.I am sure there are plenty of viable candidates! I can tell you....because it is not the way the military should publically be represented. And a majority of people don't agree with what she did.

She might have had a lesser punishment had she shown some sort of remorse. Sure, I commend her for sticking to her guns (as I am a person of principle, but once she realized that this wasn't going to have the outcome she wanted, she should have backed off a bit. Instead she further exploited herself and her status as an Air Force Sergeant.

Oh, regarding her "poor judgement"....if she makes poor judgements for herself, who's to say she won't make bad decisions for her troops?!?!

Posted 21/03/2007 at 5:34pm Gayle Olver

Allan, I take huge exception to you comparing child abuse to the legal choises an adult made. Futhermore the boundries within my personal relationship are no more then that, my personal relationship. How does this link to the "moral police"?
How do you link this to posing in playboy?
It does not matter wether I agree with playboy, agree with the military double standerd or even agree with you. Many adults make legal decissions everyday I do not agree with.
To compare this to child abuse, were one person making choises with power over an other, offends me.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 8:07pm Steve Cunningham

Regarding Allen Smith's comment on the previous page:

Actually it's very rare that I say something like this straight out... in this context you are wrong. What you are discussing are God given rights vs. what I'm discussing which are rights granted to American citizens by the US govt. I could break your argument down point by point and explain the errors in most of your statements- as if they were intended to pertain to the rights granted to US citizens by the US govt. I'm not going to do that because your argument itself better explains my point than the words I expressed previously. Your argument is based on a foundation that starts with all rights are granted by God not govt... all your thoughts proceed from that line of thinking. Yes I believe in God and understand your distinctions... As a student of religious philosophy and history I understand partly why our nation's founders decreed that their should be a separation of church and state. If you do not agree that is your choice. The greatest genocides known to mankind have occurred in part due to governments that did not make that separation. The history of China is riddled with mass genocide in part due to a government being overthrown by factions that supported opposing faiths. This has occurred many times in their history as well as others going back thousands of years- Many of the people (as well as my ancestors) fled to America to flee religious oppression. As I said before... yes I believe in God... but I also believe in the separation of church and state... IMO it is necessary for a democracy to flourish. Your examples that involve terrorism... beating prostitutes... and adultery are interesting... at least in as much that you picked that mix of things to discuss. Your comment, stating that rights and freedoms are grounded in morality are only partly true... Rights and freedoms governed by law are in fact part of political managerial system with a basis in what's considered right and wrong... but there are also points that deal directly with govt not God. A couple of these things include measures set forth to appease the masses (such as social service programs,) and on the opposite side of the spectrum... preventing individuals from obtaining degrees of power which could undermine our government's structure (such as monopolies.) The question I pose to you is not what's more important God or Govt... I know your answer to that ... the question is do you believe that for a government to provide equal freedoms to it's citizens does it need to recognize a separation of church and state? If you believe it does you should look at whether Michelle broke any laws. If you don't believe that, well that's your right... but IMO you're preaching to the wrong choir... Once you take that stance we are in a religious debate not a legal one- and by merely telling us what your religious affiliation is we can ascertain all your thoughts and opinions by merely looking at the rules that govern your faith (If you indeed hold to the letter of your faith.) If you don't agree to the separation of church and state you can enter a conversation such as this and just say I am a devoted-. So I think she is wrong and we will understand why you feel that way. You don't need to tell people they are immoral because they believe in the foundation and principles set forth to build this great nation of ours.

Posted 21/03/2007 at 8:34pm Steve Cunningham

Maria please look up the definition of "ex post facto" Your statement, "There might not have been a regulation, but there probably will be soon." Not only bleeds ignorance it only compliments your stance that once a thing is perceived to be a problem... one should back away. If you are in the right you don't have to back a way you can stand firm and be proud. I love this statement of yours...

"Sure, I commend her for sticking to her guns (as I am a person of principle, but once she realized that this wasn't going to have the outcome she wanted, she should have backed off a bit.)

How can you commend some one for standing firm and in the same sentence say you were wrong for standing firm once you realized it would be problematic. If standing firm had no potential consequences there would be nothing to commend.

Maria I would commend you if you would stand firm to not comment on anymore blogs... well unless you get pressure to say something... if that happens by all means I would expect you to write more... I mean not to would be stupid right??? I mean if there was pressure saying you should write more??

Posted 22/03/2007 at 9:11am Allan Smith

Steve, since it appears to me that most of what you had to say hinged on some presumption or belief that the founding fathers believed in seperation of church, I think it would be profitable at this time if you quote from the founding father who is credited with first using this expression and present for the readers here the context of his statement. ( you stated "our nation's founders decreed that their should be a separation of church and state". ) Your readers deserve to have you point them to any such decree.

After you've done that, I think it would benefit the readers to have you quote other founding fathers who addressed this matter and let our readers know the context in which their comments were made.

There's an old addage which says something to the effect that if you repeate a lie long enough, sooner or later, you will believe it's true.

The founding fathers believe and declared that any/all rights to which they alluded were indeed extended by The Creator, not by government, and that the government was simply acknowledging these rights and they acknowledged that they, as the governing body, had no power to limit those rights.

If you're going to inject information into a discussion, it would be beneficial if you first of all did due dilligence to make sure you correctly understand the "seperation of church and state" comment and it's full context ... AND ... its scope.

What some on the liberal left would have us believe that seperation of church and state means "get The Creator out of anything and all which the government does or supports or promotes or funds, etc".

The founding fathers clearly did not believe in nor support nor encourage removing The Creator from their lives or their politics but documentation abounds as to how often they acknowledged The Creator, their dependency on The Creator and their accountability to The Creator for all that they said or did.

Come back to this discussion with a better understanding 1) of the person credited with first using the expression 2) the context in which he said it 3) what other founding fathers had to say about it and 4) the intended scope of the expression.

You and our readers will be better people, once they learn and understand these fine points.

Your misunderstanding or not understanding of the truth(s) surrounding the expression is part of the cancer which corrupts your perspective of the inalienable rights granted to us by The Creator.

It is certain that we have no other rights than those graciously granted to us by That Creator, regardless of what "law makers" have declared / legislated to the contrary.

The papers signed by founding fathers clearly stated that they had no powers except those granted to them by the governed ( We, the people ) and yet many legislators have over the years wrongfully assumed powers not granted to them by We The People and have created different taxes and new departments ( not the least is the Board of Education ) which they had no right to do.

The documents upon which our form of government were founded clearly indicated that rights are exclusively those granted by our Creator. We have no other rights, regardless of what legislators may indicate to the contrary.

Posted 22/03/2007 at 9:31am Allan Smith

Gayle says "To compare this to child abuse, were one person making choises with power over an other, offends me."

Pedophilia is immoral in spite of the fact that some of the children involved participate willingly. I was one of those children. A homosexual man made porn available to me, I responded to that porn as one might imagine a male would, he invited me to a back room and the rest, as they say, is history. I returned to that man many times over a period of a year. He never tricked me, never forced me, never threatened me. I willingly participated.

My willingness and/or comfort level for what we did "in the privacy of his room" does not negate the fact that what happened was immoral and wrong !!

Adultery often happens between very willing participants. Their willingness and their comfort level and/or the privacy of their act and/or whether that act or those acts are done in the privacy of their own home does not change the fact that their act ( or acts ) are immoral or wrong.

Whether or not a society considers certain conduct "legal" does not change the morality of an issue. It was once considered to "own" negro slaves, it was once considered legal to beat them and/or abuse them. It was often overlooked if a white "master" gets a black female slave pregnant & using her for his own selfish gratification. The fact that these practices were legal did not change how immoral they were.

The morality of Michelle actions are not changed by her willingness or comfort level with her actions.

What pedophiles and adulterers and homosexuals and liars and crooked / corrupt military officers have in common is their lack of morality and moral choices.

Posted 22/03/2007 at 11:57am Steve Cunningham

Allen Allen Allen why quote-- it's in the first Amendment. Like evrything it's up to interpretation... so have at it interpret however you want =) Have a nice day... Michelle hope all is well!

Posted 22/03/2007 at 1:02pm Allan Smith

Steve, you made what is called "a statement of fact". You stated "our nation's founders decreed that their should be a separation of church and state".

I'm asking you to show to the readers here where they have made any such decree. I respectfully suggest to you that any/all reference to "seperation of church and state" was never a "decree" nor statute.

If the 1st Ammendment was intended to affirm or to decree or to make statutory the seperation of church and state, then it would have been worded in clear and unequivocal language. Since that expression was not unknown to the founding fathers, if the founding fathers or other subsequent law makers had intended to "decree" seperation of church and state, they could have and, I respectfully submit, would have used that expression.

One of the sad facts which are becoming more and more apparent is that some liberals interpret "seperation of church and state" to mean a complete removal of anything and everything which looks like, smells like or acts like (etc) christianity and/or the God of the Bible Belt ( and/or of the Jews ).

People who presume to be the ultimate authority in defining and deciding their own morality seem bent on eradicating The Creator and any/all that can be attributed to The Creator's, such as morals and morality. By seeking to eradicate The Creator and morals attributed to The Creator and to Christianity from government and from society, the liberal left are, in so doing, imposing their morals on upon whom they impose their (im)morality. It's a very hypocritical, if not ruthless, preoccupation engaged in by the liberal left ( and, to some degree ) some of Orato's staff who keep good company of character with the majority of the generally liberal-biased media internationally.

Posted 22/03/2007 at 1:56pm Steve Cunningham

Alen I am a Christian... Republican... that lives in the Bible Belt with mostly Baptist friends... but please continue on about presumptions I can't wait to hear more

Posted 22/03/2007 at 3:03pm Allan Smith

Republican used to mean something. Mind you, do did Baptist.

You still haven't addressed the query about "decree" and/or "seperation of church and state".

Take the challenge because it will improve you and your representation of Christians as well as Republicans in our culture . Goodness knows both need all the help they can get, especially considering the fact that both are, in today's American society becoming synonomous with the word "hypocrite".

One of the things that should be mandated by our good-intentions-ridden government should be a thoughtful and deliberate program to teach today's students, from the first grade till the 12th, about the constitution and of Supreme Court documents and opinions which followed shortly after the country was formed.

Unfortunately, to do so, public schools would have to use the word "god" and terms like "creator" in the discussion, since many of the founding fathers were considered Christians and had well documented faith in The Creator. It would be a real challenge to teach constitutional law and NOT teach about important roll The Creator had in the forming of the founding documents and country.

If you're genuine about the imporantance of the Constitution and of constitutional law and it's foundational roll in law and order today, don't take my word for it ... but don't do NOTHING. Take the time to actually study constitutional law, from it's inception, and you'll discover some very liberating truths.

Posted 22/03/2007 at 6:17pm Allan Smith

Heather, I suppose that "credit where credit is due" is in order here, for it appears that you wisely pick to not do battle in which you are assured one form or another of what some might perceive as "loss". I've tossed you some challenges, like going public with whether or not it's right for your b/f, lover, spouse being a practicing pedophile and you won't even answer that question. It's like you're afraid to admit the answer for fear that by doing so, you'll support my position on morality. You recognize that you're between the proverbial rock and a hard place, where you can neither say it's wrong ( immoral ) nor are you foolish enough to state that pedophilia is right / moral. No matter how deeply you're convinced that pedophilia is wrong, you know you can't say so for you know that pedophilia is a moral issue and you _will_ avoid at all costs appearing to be imposing your morality on any other ... AND ... I suspect you have no moral foundation on which to support your position that pedophilia is wrong, since the Author of morality regarding pedophilia is the self-same author of morality regarding adultery, lying, murder and homosexuality ... and I can't see you aligning yourself with The Creator any time soon.

I had a miniature Collie once who would lay peacefully when a stranger approached and then, when that person had their back turned, that dog would charge up behind them, nip them painfully on the ankle and be gone.

You remind me of that Collie.

Posted 23/03/2007 at 12:08am Luyen Dao

It seems that everyone has a point of view on something, especially when it's in the media, it becomes the mental object of the day.

The purpose of discussion in my humble opinion is not to impress right or wrong on others, because first of all, it never works but to share ideas, and through the force of discussion, reasoning through restrained dialogue, come to a possible consensus or disagreement over what is valid, invalid, or unknown.

This is just my opinion of what debate is - I admire that so many posts are really passionate, but at the end of the day, i think it's important to look at the results of what we say and do, regardless of whether we think we're right or not.

I think all meaningful change that comes from dialogue, happens through subtle exchange, and not through force.

Truth is, all of us when we write or say something, have this notion of ego, that my perspective is the correct one, i am right, because it is me, saying it. It's not something we have to look very far to verify, we immediately assume that we're correct.

I think this is of great detriment to everyone, you see it in parliament, where political parties are unable to even credit to the other party when they do something that everyone agrees is good.

Regarding this actual story, right or wrong, the people who run the military also make up their own rules, as far as the author is concerned it might be a great injustice, and to others not so much.

I think in certain situations it pays to be mindful, her posing in playboy isn't wrong obviously, but to some military people it's not what they want in their eyes - as the person making the decision to pose in playboy, i think she should weigh the possible consequences of her actions.

Playboy and military don't exactly mix, whether or not this is an injustice, well, i would only say that maybe there are other civil liberties we should weight relative to this one.

Just my two cents.

Posted 23/03/2007 at 8:25am Allan Smith

Heather stated "My grandparents had a regular-sized Collie that only bit people that deserved it." to which I respond :

Touche' !!

Now that you and I exchanged sportsman-like whiticisms ( jive ? ), why don't you type somthing substantive which will contribute to the conversation / debate / discussion.

Posted 24/03/2007 at 8:40am Chuck P

Heather Wallace wrote: Maria - what do you think of the fact the military has always supported and promoted Playboy and female sexuality as a morale booster?

Heather Wallace
senior editor

They have? What planet are you on? Maybe you should read up on some regs, as a matter of fact the majority of bases have removed Playboy and many magazines like it. Please make sure your info is correct before you post it.

Now, on to the subject at hand:
Lets start out in the beginning, what she did was wrong. Period. She signed on the dotted line, just like everyone before her. She knew the rules and choose to continue with her patch anyways. Cool, she has that right to do so, but she knew that the military wasn't going to be nice about it. It is clearly stated in the UCMJ that this type of behavior is not condoned.
Ok, now, lets say she didn't use her military stuff to promote this? Would she have still been in Playboy? Maybe, but she knew the rules and choose to ignore them. If she hadn't been in uniform or attached the military to her spread, she would have been still active duty and things would be fine.
Bottom line, she got played by Playboy. They wanted the military part in there caused it would have got allot of press and attention. Did it work? Yup. Did it cost her a career? Yup. Would they have shot her without her military uniform on? Who knows, but look at all the free press she/they got for this.
Did she know what she is doing? Yes, and if there is any doubt, read her myspace page. She has always wanted to be a model. Is that wrong? No, in fact it is cool, but what isn't cool is when she used the military to "get ahead" in her modeling career. She played the system and the system played her. She lost!

The worst part of all this is, she is/was a good TI. She shaped the ways of the Air Force for at least a few generations. For that, I will Thanks her. But the really sad part is that in about 5 years, she will, like many others, be forgotten. Anyone remember the Navy female that did the same thing back in the 90's?

Posted 25/03/2007 at 5:30am Allan Smith

I'd be interested to know whether the male soldiers did what Michelle did ... 1) pose nude 2) in their uniform 3) while on active duty. I'd also like to have some military official tell us what REALLY happened with Michelle. All we've got is Orato's version of what happened. I'm wondering if any of the facts have received any liberal skew and have every reason to wonder if Michelle gave all the details accurately of if she slanted the story in her favor. So many here have denounced the military for how they've handled the situation without knowing the facts of how the Military handled it and I'm betting the last shoe hasn't fallen on this discussion.

Posted 25/03/2007 at 2:41pm Chuck P

That is a interesting point. Every member has the right to trial by court martial, and she could have asked for that if she wanted too. Then all the facts would have come out.

Posted 25/03/2007 at 3:15pm Allan Smith

I don't know how confident y'all are that "all the facts would have come out" because one need only read Michael New's ordeal ( www.MikeNew.com ) to see how that tho there are laws, rules and regulations, they're only as strong as the character of those who's responsibility it is to see that they are followed.

I'd love to see Orato's editors contact Michael New and/or his parents / attorney(ies) and write an article about how the military handled his case. Justice has not yet been done in this case.

There is the appearance that people in authority both in the military and in government don't want the truth about Michael New's situation to surface, for fear of the far-ranging impact it might have on future deployments ... and future military engagements.

Before anyone joins the US military, they should carefully consider the facts of Michael's case and should have decided in their own mind whether or not they should ever serve under any commander who has not themselves sworn to defend the US Constitution and loyalty to America.

They should understand that when they sign their military contract, they have become the property of the Federal Government and are under military law, having signed away many of their constitutional rights and/or freedoms.

They should have a solid understanding of the constitution of America and Supreme Court decisions made in the early years of our great country and should know under what conditions they may be ordered to engage an enemy in mortal combat.

They should have a solid understanding of what constitutes legal orders and illegal so that they will recognize in a heart beat the difference between the two and so that they will know their rights, responsibilities and scope of accountability in such matters.

Posted 25/03/2007 at 6:06pm julian durran

Her "true story" is exaggeration and lies. She told people she knew what she got herself into and that it was worth it. She knew that she was going to get kicked out but she wasn't happy any more because she did get in "trouble". Frankly i don't like the girl cause i know her. i have my reasons and she knows why. she's just trying to justify her actions and ignore her mistakes. for those of u that think this is great...how would u feel if it was your mother?

Posted 26/03/2007 at 11:54am Michelle Manhart

Hi, all...just for the record I would like to first say THANK YOU!!! Thank you for reading this wonderful article by Heather...who took the time to listen to me and not judge me but state the facts. As for the conversations...even though some are not the best to read (and some have lies) I still appreciate that you all are able to read and write one another only I wish it was a little nice...stick to the facts!!!
I would also like to say just for the record...a lot of people claim to know me and even know things about me...and with that comes people saying they know personal things about you. This holds true with Julian! I have NEVER in my life met a Julian I don't care how much a person says they know you or know everything about you...if they really do they won't go out of their way to build an account on a blog and belittle you personally whether they like you or not...UNLESS, they are looking for a little bit of attention. Feel free to throw your accusations...you are the one that has to know you are unhappy with yourself!
To everyone else, good and bad...I appreciate the comments whether for or against because it is showing interaction with opinions which is GREAT...too many people now days just say words but don't really hear themselves. For my supporters...A SPECIAL THANK YOU...I am real and I hope to meet you all in person someday ... THANK YOU
Michelle

Posted 26/03/2007 at 2:30pm Allan Smith

Michelle, I've admitted on this site that I've committed adultery. Have you committed, with a fellow soldier or with any other person ?

Had there previously been any disciplinary action taken against you prior to the action(s) taken against you over the posing situation ?

Have you left anything out of the story ?

Is there a person who Orato staff could contact to verify that the facts given to us by yourself are complete and/or accurate ?

It's a sad commentary when someone who's committed an immoral act is thankful that someone else didn't "judge" them, as tho "not judging" is some how commendable. In the military, what would happen if you, as a trainer, saw falts and flaws ( whether physical limitations or character flaws ) and you passed a trainee in spite of the implications of their flaws ? Would you get an "atta-boy" for that or would you stand risk of reprimand ? Would any in your Chain of Command ever take you aside and commend you for "not judging" ? I hardly think so.

Ambivolence toward immorality is increasingly pandemic in cultures and societies today and is hardly commendable, least of all for our soldiers, police officers, judges or politicians ( to say nothing of our clergy !!! )

Selfish acts are self-destructive and are commonly associated with collateral damage ... and I'm confident that Michelle is familiar with that term and knows the implications and the metaphor which applies here. She has already witnessed some of the collateral damage in her career and I suspect in her family life as well as among her friends.

In time, I suspect that in hind sight, Michelle will wish she'd never done the shoot and that no matter WHAT she was paid, she'll feel that it wasn't worth the impact which it will have on her life.

Posted 26/03/2007 at 4:15pm Chuck P

Then she isn't telling all the truth, according to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment. I will be happy to provide the exact Article if you wish, but that is the facts. Bottom line, is she knew by using pictures of her in her uniform was wrong. If she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?

Michelle, if you are reading this then I have a few more comments. Was it worth it? Is that you gave up worth all the "fame"? What happens when Playboy is done with you? You had such a good future with the USAF, but you threw it away for your 15 mins of fame. You made more than a difference in the trainee's you have made, I know I have seen them.
Was it all worth it?

If you so with, your welcome to email me directly or look for me on your myspace. Same name as on here!

Posted 27/03/2007 at 1:47pm Hope Frost

I don't usually comment on these things but some of you really have pissed me off. I have actually known Michelle for many years and you are allowed to have an opinion, she fought for each of you to have that right, but what you are not allowed to do is judge what she has done. You hear all kinds of stuff about her, I get fwds all of the time of crap that is just plain not true but what you don't hear is about the real Michelle. I have to give Heather props here, she did an amazing story and got closer to Michelle than any other story I have read so far.

Michelle has been in the military for 13 years and of that time spend some of is over seas and as a kick ass TI. She fought for you to have the right to have opinions and speak them. But the last time I checked, the only one that can judge her is God.

What you don't usually get to hear about is her being a devoted and amazing mother, a loving and caring wife and an wonderful and giving friend. One of you mentioned her mother and how she feels about this, I am 100% sure that her mother is proud of her. Another mentioned her family, she has a great family blood related and us others that just feel like family. Everyone is proud of her. Michelle works hard not only at her job but as a mom, as a wife, as a daughter, and as a friend. Agree or not agree with what she has done, that is your right, but do not judge her!

Posted 27/03/2007 at 3:07pm Allan Smith

Hope Frost, I have a question for you.

Did Michelle not fight for my right to judge Michelle's character ?

If you found out that your father was involved with porn ... or that your priest / reverend was involved with porn, would it affect YOUR perception of that person's character ? Careful here because if you say "yes", they YOU are judging their character.

If you found out that your spouse / lover ... or you father ... or other male friends / family was going off privately with Michelle's nude pictures to do what men often do in response to nude pics, would you think that was wrong ? Would it affect your perception of their character and/or change your relationship with them ?

If you answer "yes" to this question, they you are judging them.

YOU are judging US for our comments. What gives you the right to judge us ? You make very evident that you have judged us by stating "I don't usually comment on these things but some of you really have pissed me off." People don't usually get that torked when they approve of someone's actions or choice of words. It's apparent you have judged as having done something wrong.

Now tell me, if YOU feel it's OK to judge others, why then would you deny others the natural reflex of judging Michelle's character and her judgement in this matter of posing nude ?

You've told what a wonderful person Michelle is. Do you realize that the same wonderful characteristics are also demonstrated by many of the world's most notorious mafia members ? Does a sex offender's otherwise note-worthy and commendable characteristics qualify them to remain under the radar ie: mean that we shouldn't judge them for their sexual indiscretions ? Because they live an otherwise exemplary lives, should we then overlook the poor choices they make ?

It's not only our right but our responsibility to make judgements of a person's character & their integrity.

Anyone in the military knows this to be true. Civilians should as well.

It begs the question as to why YOU don't instinctively know this to be true.

Posted 27/03/2007 at 3:37pm Richard Day Gore

Man, it's amazing to see that in 2007 the thought of a naked woman can raise hackles just like it did back in the Middle Ages. Somewhere in bewteen all the hyperbolic expressions of offense and defence there's bound to be a middle ground with some truth in it. If Michelle's conduct violates the UCMJ, then it's not a big shame that she got the book thrown at her. As a career soldier she had to be sufficiently familiar with the structure to know the risks, but chose to go buff anyway. The thing is, there's enough leeway in most legal codes for prosecutors to pick and choose who they want to throw the book at to satisfy their organizational agendas. Have others gone unpunished for worse things? Yes. But a prosecutor's job, or the military people responsible for Michelle's downfall, is not just to punish the guilty--it's to make examples. So their choosing this person, and this supposed infraction, to make an example of may speak volumes about how women are still perceived at various levels of power. And to me that's a lot scarier than a naked body.

To me the whole thing buys into the continued objectifation of women, from both ends. Hello, it's not called PlayPerson. Is a woman making some kind of statement by getting naked going to advance the cause of women's rights? IMO no, it's just more of the problem. As is the grey-minded corporate boys-club mentality that's always looking to jusitfy its own existence with an issue like this.

Regards,
Richard Day Gore

Posted 27/03/2007 at 7:24pm Hope Frost

Allan, I haven't judged you or anyone on this forum. It makes me very angry that you talk about someone so harshly that you don't even know. Yes, Michelle did sign on the dotted line, but that doesn't mean she signed her life away. In dealing with you, I did a search to see if I could find something with military men in it, and it was a split second before I found a military calendar with Marines with their shirts off in bikini underware posing on beaches all over the world. Why is it okay for that and not okay for a beautiful woman to so the same?

In response to your comment, Michelle did fight for your right to have an opinion and God knows I have my own opinions, the thing that you don't have the right to do is judge her or push your opinions on the world. She hasn't done that. If you don't want to look at the pictures, DON'T! The thing that made me mad was the fact that you were attacking her morals and her family by stating that she didn't have and family support, when how the hell would you know that?

I agree with Richard, in that it seems to be like we have stepped back in time by like 50 years. I haven't judged you Allan, I don't even know you, what I have done is to ask that if you would like to state your opinions that you do it in a way that isn't hurtful and use only the facts.

Posted 27/03/2007 at 7:33pm Allan Smith

Richard concluded his comments by saying "As is the grey-minded corporate boys-club mentality that's always looking to jusitfy its own existence with an issue like this."

Um, the way I see it, it's Heather and Michelle who looking to justify their actions by making such a public spectacle about all this. The army isn't to blame for making this a public issue, Michelle is ( as are the media personnel who've been reaping corporate profits from the marketability of this story ).

If it dare be said that the military has some "hidden" agenda, let it be observed that Michelle also appears to have an agenda, as one might also presume of a woman who's well-known here in Orato-Land, the woman who stated in another comment "men are the predators and women are the prey".

Orato has their own (liberal?) reasons for highlighting stories like a female soldier who's crying for publicity to justify her own actions. That same soldier _knows_ what the term "suck it up" means !! And here she is, in the public forum, giving the Wah-Wah concert of her life, that in and of itself would make the average soldier ashamed to wear her same uniform. As a T1, she'd _never_ tolerate the level of cry-baby status she's publicly showing.

The military didn't destroy Michelle's career. She's done it to herself, if not by posing nude and then telling her chain of command ( like closing the gate after the cows are out ) then by crying publicly as she is.

The media who've run with her story have contributed to Michelle's short-lived career. They've put the final nail in that coffin which Michelle built with her own hands ( and for which Playboy contributed all the materials !! )

Posted 27/03/2007 at 7:47pm Allan Smith

Hope, you gotta read what you type a little better. You stated "Allan, I haven't judged you or anyone on this forum." and yet you have. You've judged that I've "talk(ed) about someone so harshly ... ". That's a judgment. There's an implication in what you write that I am somehow wrong for what I've stated and/or for how I've stated.

Military men posing with revealing bathing suits on is indeed different than a woman who exposes breasts and/or other parts of her body which differentiate her anatomy from male anatomy. Female soldiers are free to walk any public beach with those parts of their anatomy covered ( if ever so immodestly ) and to pose for photos. Neither male nor female soldiers are free to remove those articles of clothing to expose for publication in a well-known porn rag, those areas of their body generally covered by their bathing suits.

Hope, you say I don't have "the right to push (my) opinions on the world."

Um ... says WHO ? I mean, by saying what you did, you're "pushing your opinion" on me !! How is it that it's OK for you to be so angry and to publicly kick my butt with your angry words and then to push your opinion on me and yet it's wrong for me to express my opinion about Michelle's lack of moral judgment ?

I didn't "attack" her morals. I simply held her _lack_ of morals up so that they could be seen for what they are.

Hope, in closing, there's a saying that I'm sure is well known to you. That saying is "The Truth Hurts". Get used to it.

Posted 27/03/2007 at 9:42pm Michelle Manhart

Chuck P..in response to your questions....
"Then she isn't telling all the truth" YES I am.... "according to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment." "if she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?"
This is where I think you are misreading the article....I DIDN'T get an Article 15...that is what I am saying, I didn't get a court martial or article 15 or anything but a bunch of broken red tape!


"was it worth it?"
Yes, more than you can imagine. I cannot expect you to understand why I did it or why it was worth it but beyond a shadow of a doubt it was.

Then she isn't telling all the truth, according to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment. I will be happy to provide the exact Article if you wish, but that is the facts. Bottom line, is she knew by using pictures of her in her uniform was wrong. If she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?

Is that you gave up worth all the "fame"?
What happens when Playboy is done with you? You had such a good future with the USAF, but you threw it away for your 15 mins of fame.
You say 15 min well that might be your opinion but you are wrong. You say I had a good future with the AF again your opinion...you never can tell you future...so you nor I can say for sure whether I had a good future in the AF. I dont live for tomorrow I live for NOW! There is no such thing as Playboy being done with anyone. The one thing that PB has over the military is that once you are a member of the family you always are and they know the true meaning of family cause they accept us for who we are!
Furthermore, I have signed to host a reality show...I also have several modeling contracts in line...I have also signed to do two movies and before you get you mind in the wrong arena...They will both be at your local theatre. One is with Columbia Pictures I am sure you have heard of them.
You may not like what I did and that is your opinion but I ask you nicely not to judge my character because that is nothing you have been opened to looking at yet...
There are wrongs and rights in a lot of circumstances, I am not asking people to agree with me if they dont...if someone has an abortion there will be ranted opinions on that too..but does that make that person a BAD person...NO, they just made a decision at that moment that they themself will have to live with....I am over joyed to live with my decision...yesterday, today and anyday in the future that I am lucky enough to embrass....
Finally, AGAIN and just for the record (this is not towards all of you)...I have not cheated on my husband....I guess it is just easy to assume that everyone does that sort of thing in todays age...but some of us are just happy where we are, it is funny how people in the eyes view get accused of all sorts of things...maybe I should go shave my head too and see where that gets me....Rumors are just that...and unless you and I slept together then all you have is just that RUMORS. Stick to the facts....or just go out and follow your own dreams...so you dont have to live negatively through mine!

Posted 28/03/2007 at 7:39am Allan Smith

Michelle, one sign of a person's selfishness is that they live for TODAY.

I'm confounded that someone can refer to PB as a "family" ... other than when I put that comment into perspective. I mean, the word "family" is a very common word among the mafia as well. Kinda puts your perspective into persepective.

Michelle, if someone murdered someone you know and love, "does that make that person a BAD person...NO, they just made a decision at that moment that they themself will have to live with". I've used a quote from your comments to make a point. Abortion is murder. Once again, it kinda puts your perspective on murder into perspective. BTW, the answer to your question is "yes", and one who should be punished for her crime. Sadly, abortion, as immoral and vile as it is, is legal in far too many countries. There's another example for people prefer to argue the legality of an act or practice instead of acknowledging the morality of an act or practice.

You have done as far too many women have done in that you have objectified yourself and just as PB is profiting by exploiting your ego, so also Hollywood hopes to do. You are now an object to be marketted. You will be discarded when they feel that they've made all the money they can off of you. Enjoy it while you can and all the best to you. I can't help but wonder if being a movie star is so great, why are so many of them drunk, stoned or dead ? ( Anna Nicole, for example ). I can't imagine that anyone who gets their start in the world of fame & fortune ever believes that they could end up as she did.

Posted 28/03/2007 at 8:13am Chuck P

Michelle Manhart wrote: Chuck P..in response to your questions....
"Then she isn't telling all the truth" YES I am.... "ccording to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment." "f she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?"

This is where I think you are misreading the article....I DIDN'T get an Article 15...that is what I am saying, I didn't get a court martial or article 15 or anything but a bunch of broken red tape!

Well since I am not into the whole guard side of it, i will assume you got a admin discharge?


"as it worth it?"
Yes, more than you can imagine. I can not expect you to understand why I did it or why it was worth it but beyond a shadow of a doubt it was.

Cool, I am glad your having fun.

Then she isn't telling all the truth, according to the UCMJ any military member has the right to trial by court material in lew of a Article 15 or any other UCMJ punishment. I will be happy to provide the exact Article if you wish, but that is the facts. Bottom line, is she knew by using pictures of her in her uniform was wrong. If she had gone to trial by court material then the punishment could/would have been worse. She accepted the article 15 on her own choice. Is this not correct Michelle?

Can you answer that question?

You say 15 min well that might be your opinion but you are wrong. You say I had a good future with the AF again your opinion...you never can tell you

You are correct in that, you can't tell. But i will ask you a few questions, point blank and without bias:
Why did you have to attached you military? Do you feel remorse for using your fellow Airmen to get ahead? Did you think that the AF was going to let this go? Did you not know what you were about to do (using your military uniform) to get you ahead wasn't going to get you into trouble? Seriously, you have to have known this was coming down. You can pose for who ever as long as you don't use your military stuff. You taught countless recruits about being "blue" and the rules governing us, yet you turn around and break them? Expecting everyone to be happy about it? You can pose in whatever magazine you want, but you can't use your position in the military to do it. What would you say to someone who went to a "rally" in uniform, got on TV and then got in trouble? Is that not the same thing?
Now before you go off, let me clarify, posing in PB without your uniform would have been ok. Using your uniform isn't. Was this not a publicity stunt? All the free TV, headlines? What I am pissed about is you used me and every airmen to get ahead. that is what I am not cool with.
15 mins of fame:
K, tell me the name, rank and job that the sailor who posed in PB was? Does anyone remember her? Will this happen to you, who knows, time till tell.

"The one thing that PB has over the military is that once you are a member of the family you always are and they know the true meaning of family cause they accept us for who we are!"

Michelle, this is the biggest line of crap ever. Your going to sit and say how wonderful the Air Force was to you and then turn around and now say that PB treats you better? Military members in the their graves are rolling over. You tell me that all the time you spend in the AF was wasted? Yet you tell Montel, it was some of the best times in your life. Seems to me your getting a bad taste for something you, yourself caused.

I have also signed to do two movies and before you get you mind in the wrong arena...
Your assuming people think that.

I am not asking people to agree with me if they dont...if someone has an abortion there will be ranted opinions on that too..but does that make that person a BAD person...NO, they just made a decision at that moment that they themself will have to live with....

This is apples and oranges. Posing in PB and killing someone isn't the same. I get the point.

Again though, not saying you posing is bad, in fact, it isn't. What I am saying is using the military stuff to get ahead. Do you have such contempt for the others that still serve? If you have the little bit of respect then I ask you to remove the cartoon on your myspace. I am asking you to remove it, please. It is bad attempt to make yourself look better.
What people seem to forget is that you can pose, but you can't use your position in the military to do it. Simply put and everyone is losing site of that. What Michelle does on her off time is up to her, but my point is not using the military to do it.

Michelle, I still have some respect for you, one for serving your country in a time of war. Two, for doing something good and sending me top notch airmen. As far as I am concerned your still a "family" member for your years of service. I just wish you would have thought about not using the AF like you did. Does this make sense?
Again, you can answer these offline or online. Just look on your friends list, I am there.

Posted 28/03/2007 at 7:11pm John Humes

RE: Michelle Manhart

I have been following blogs and comments regarding Michelle Manhart at several forums on the internet.

Orato, in my opinion, has published the most complete and fair account of what has transpired.

The comments that have been posted for the most part seem to forget one major point. That is that Michelle DID NOT get her request for a "Court Martial". What the Air Force in fact did do is to completely disregard her basic rights under the UCOMJ.

It is very scary as to what has happened to Michelle. It could happen to anyone who is in the military. No trial, just a lynching.

And at the end the final form of injustice is to make Michelle report to a reserve unit in IA.

To me the issue is not that she posed in Playboy but that she was completly denied her rights.

All of us that have served in the military should be raising thier voices in protest. Please write your representatives in the Senate and Congress.

And YES, I have been doing so and more.

Thanks for reading my comment. Now, how about taking some action.

John

Posted 29/03/2007 at 6:58am Allan Smith

John,

Have you got information from the AF which confirms your statement :

"That is that Michelle DID NOT get her request for a "Court Martial". What the Air Force in fact did do is to completely disregard her basic rights under the UCOMJ"

Or are you just repeating what you've heard "here and there" ??

My concern here is that judgments are being made against the military without all the facts.

Posted 29/03/2007 at 10:31pm Steve Cunningham

Hadn't been by in a week--- just thought I'd drop by and see if Allen was still raving like a lunatic.... yup lol! Keep it up buddy... The world needs nuts like you... if for no reason other than to make the rest of us feel normal haha. Hi Michelle--- BTW Allen your response to me will only go on others ears... but I may check back in a week or so to see if your as insane as we all think.

Posted 30/03/2007 at 7:43am Allan Smith

Steve,

A week or so ago, you stated "I am a Christian". Then you show your real colors with this recent childish tirade which shows your lack of self ( if not christian ) control.

If you're a christian at all, then you're a typical christian ... you're a hypocrite !!

The original language in which the christian bible was written uses a word which means "Little Christ" and that word has been "translated" as the word "christian".

Now tell me ... what part of your spiteful and openly rude comments do you believe the real Christ would have used ? Which part of your comments would you feel most comfortable reading to your christian reverend or to your christian congregation ?

The saddest thing about most christians today is that they're so much like the non-christians that it's difficult to tell the difference.

Mind you, the same could be said for Republicans. Most of them are Democrats who pretend they're Republicans so they can get voted in. They don't really stand for much that matters ... and those Republicans who're worth much at all are few and far between.

Now that you've relieved yourself of those pent up feelings and emotions, how about actually contributing to the discussion in some sort of constructive manner.

As a "christian", you have in this forum called Orato a wide-opened opportunity to present solid christian principals, to show Godly morals, to be a "light shining in darkness" and the best you can do is to act like the non-christians ? You're an embarrassment to the real christians ... so much so that I doubt you're a christian at all. Kind of like democrats who're pretending to be republicans.

Posted 31/03/2007 at 12:20am John Humes

Allen,

Yes, there is reliable information regardaring Manhart. I will not post it here so don't ask.

John

Posted 1/04/2007 at 7:11am Allan Smith

Yes, John. I can see how it would be totally unreasonable for Orato readers to ask you to post here reliable information regarding Manhart. Far be it from Orato readers to expect _balanced_ coverage of this situation.

Posted 6/04/2007 at 11:24pm Tiffany McPherson

Michelle Manhart is a disgusting piece of trash, and a complete disgrace to the uniform, her fellow troops, and the entire nation. Her punishment should have been more harsh. I am glad the AF made the wise decision to get rid of her - we don't need trash in the military.

Posted 10/04/2007 at 7:02pm Allan Smith

Tiffany, TY for your comments. Good to see a _woman_ who's got what it takes to call a spade a spade. Get used to the fact that the liberal media supports your right to mock and scoff and ridicule conservative positions but _not_ liberal ones. Your freedom of speech stops when you correctly identify a problem with a liberal ( licentious ? ) viewpoint or practice. If you support licentious living, feel free to speak your mind. If you are disgusted with the immorality and selfishness of some in the liberal camp, expect to be rebuked for calling it like you see it. Welcome to Orato.

If you are offended at how some call good evil and evil good, then I encourage you to keep speaking your mind here in Orato. Yes, you'll take trash talk for doing so ( they can dish it out but can't take it ) but then hopefully it'll be worth it.

To see ONE of the challenges I've tossed out, read the following :

http://www.orato.com/node/2059#comment-542

Posted 10/04/2007 at 7:22pm Hope Frost

I completely disagree with you Alan, I know big shocker. I am totally okay with you having an opinion on what Michelle has done, you can not agree with it and you can think it is garbage and you can say so and you have quite loudly, what I don't agree with is you attacking her as a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier. Again, you don't have to look at the photos if they bother you. You have something to say about anything that is written, good, bad or indifferent. You seem to be able to argue with anything. If you are so offended by what you see at Orato, why do you keep returning? Why do you find it so gratifying to argue with everyone even after you know that you will not change their minds to what you believe?

Posted 11/04/2007 at 7:23am Allan Smith

I'm hoping that Hope is different from some here on Orato. I'm hoping she'll dare to take some of my challenges and make her position known on some of the questions I've posed to other people here. The issue, Hope, is not Michelle as a person ( etc ) but her _character_ !! Her character can be seen by what she says and does. The kind of "a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier" she is is determined by her character. If her character is reproachable, then an on-looker can correctly understand that she's less of "a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier" than she should be. If you're truly interersted in Michelle as "a person, a mother, a wife or a soldier", then you will take her aside and lovingly deal with her _character_ !! Instead of chastising me for making an issue of her character, use your time productively and help Michelle work on hers.

If you will take no other challenge from me but one, then take this challenge. Go public here on Orato as to 1) whether there's a Higher Moral Authority, our Creator, from whom we should learn morality and to Whom we will ultimately be accountable for our words, thoughts and actions.

If your position is that there is no Higher Moral Authority to Whom all people must ultimately answer, then both you and I are free to make up our own mind about right and wrong. Any and every thing which comes under the category of "perversion" is permissible. Everyone can do what they want, no matter how much others are opposed to it.

What's your position, Hope ?

Posted 11/04/2007 at 9:57am Robyn Williams

Tiffany - you just make yourself sound. Sounds to me like you're a jealous, fearful person. If you have a husband, he probably finds Michelle attractive and that just drives you crazy. And Allan - I've never heard of such a hypocrite. You claim to be all "godly" and then you promote other people calling women trash...Do you really think Jesus would promote that kind of thing? Jesus befriended prostitutes, or have you conveniently omitted that from your memory?

Posted 11/04/2007 at 12:08pm Allan Smith

Robyn, tell me where I "claim to be all godly".

If you have actually read anything authoritative about Jesus, you will know that at one time, he called people hypocrites and at another time he took a cat-o-nine-tails ( scourge ) and drove "money changers" out of a temple court.

Now that you've stated "Jesus befriended prostitutes", how about you tell other readers where you learned that little bit of info. Refer them, as christians would say, to the chapter and verse ... or did you get that from some movie ? If you've gotten that perspective from a movie, even you will be ashamed. If you got it from "the bible", give the readers chapter and verse and discuss the context.

ie: did Jesus befriend prostitutes who continued on with their prostitution ... OR ... did he befriend ex-prostitutes ?

There's a big difference here, as you can see.

You've brought this issue up. Now let's see how you resolve it.

In "the bible", there was a woman "taken in adultery". What Jesus said to her was very judgemental. He considered that what she had done to be sinful !! We can know that because He's quoted as saying "go your way and ... " ... what does he say next, Robyn ?? Tell the readers here what the Jesus to whom you refer said to this adulterous woman.

Posted 11/04/2007 at 12:48pm Hope Frost

The adulturess, found in John 8, that you are speaking of, yes the woman was caught in the very act of adultery and the teachers and Pharisees brought her to Jesus as a test. Jesus agreed that what she had done was against the law that Moses brought and that she was to be stoned...but there's more to the story. This is where Jesus stooped to the ground and wrote in the dirt...we don't know what...this is when He said something (depending on bible version) like "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" and the crowd dispersed...Then Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were..."who condemns you?"...her response "no one sir" His response "Neither do I condemn you" "Go now and leave your life of sin"
Also, Luke 6:27-42 is a very long teaching on how you are to love your enemies and not be judging as to their actions.
Then there is the story of the bleeding woman. She was shunned by society and religion for being unclean...but was healed by touching Jesus
We are told to, when in conflict (of law or character) to go to that person first with another brother to talk to the person individually...It's the beginnings of the leadership philosophy "praise in public...chastise in private"
I would caution you, Alan, that I WILL NOT engage in a war of scriptural verses with you. But that I do understand the bible and sometimes the best way to help someone is to love them and lead by example. Criticizing someone indirectly is not rebuking, counseling or helping them. It is merely an opportunity to show those listening your level of piety and/or knowledge and is not pride a sin in and of itself?

Posted 11/04/2007 at 3:01pm Allan Smith

Heather, I hoped against hope that if I stuck around long enough, I'd find someone who'd actually engage in discussion and contribute something substantive. I'm thankful that Hope has finally done so. TY TY Hope !!

Jesus people whom Jesus "befriended" were ex-adulterers, ex-prostitutes, ex-tax collectors, etc. In case you've not read my earlier statement, I have committed adultery.

As for Michelle being called "trash", Paul the Apostle called himself a WORM. He recognized that he was a worm. Another passage refers to people being dung. Now, would you rather we call Michelle "dung" or would you agree that "trash" is a more complimentary term ?

I once was "trash". I once practiced perversions which merited that adjective. If there's hope for the likes of me, there's hope for Michelle. She needs the same attitude adjustment that I did ... and the same attitude adjustment I need every time I'm selfish, especially when I make immoral choices ( as I've discussed in another response a month or so ago ).

You stated "Criticizing someone indirectly is not rebuking, counseling or helping them." When Jesus is quoted as saying "Ye hypocrites ...", was he not criticizing people ? ( you'll find the context in Matt 5-7 tho I think the actual verses are in Chapter 7 ). Then check out Matt 23:33 and tell me if you still believe your comments.

You stated "We are told to, when in conflict (of law or character) to go to that person first with another brother to talk to the person individually...It's the beginnings of the leadership philosophy "praise in public...chastise in private"

Read the context of that passage and you will find that it says that when a brother transgresses against ME. Michelle hasn't transgressed against ME. The verse you used is out of context in this case. Read it carefully and you'll see what I mean.

You stated "But that I do understand the bible and sometimes the best way to help someone is to love them and lead by example."

There's an old proverb which states something about about the kiss of an enemy and the wounds of a friend.

I'd respectfully suggest to you that I've shown her more real love than has the people who condone and/or encourage her actions !! Think about it. Read all I've stated. Remember, the written word bares with it neither body language nor tone of voice. Try reading what I've typed without imputing to my words some assumed body language or tone of voice. See if you can find in there the wounds of a friend.

Posted 11/04/2007 at 6:33pm Hope Frost

Allan

1) Twice now you've mentioned ex-something (ex-tax collectors, ex-adulterers etc)...I would argue that the adulteress was not an ex-...until meeting Jesus. It is written that Zacchaeus was "a tax collector". I do not have the time to take this to the original language to see if this refers to past or present tense. A more definitive phrasing would be that he was "the" tax collector, but the context of the story implies that it references a present tense situation.

2) Paul called himself a worm. The self actuallization of our failure before God is an altogether different situation than that of a judgemental statement on the relative value of another. The arguement of the degree of compliment instilled by a derogatory comment is laughable. It is still a comment designed to create an analogous value to something of little value.

3) I am happy that you are saved. While I will make a statement that there is but one path to Heaven...there are many paths to the point of salvation. Perhaps the road to your finding grace is different that that of others. Similar perhaps...but different.

4) Direct vs. Indirect commentary. Yes, I will concede that Jesus was not speaking directly to specific individuals in the story you are referencing...therefore He was speaking indirectly. However he was speaking DIRECTLY to the group of people. The intent here ( and I think you know it ) is that there is a difference between addressing a person or group directly and speaking indirectly to them by speaking through or to other persons.

5) Handling conflict...I was not quoting direct scripture. I was quoting the concept. That concept is that you are to direct your concern of offence to the person and not talk about the conflict/transgression to others in the congregation. There should be direct communication. (See #4)

5b) "Michelle has not transgressed against ME." How true. Why not let any moral trasgression be between her and He who may or may not find transgression in her actions?

6) "Sometimes the best way to help someone is to love them and lead by example." I still stand by this. The key word is sometimes. There are no absolutes in guidance.

7) The wounds of a friend... would it were that we all had friends to lovingly correct us when we needed it. Are you Michelle's friend? Do you know her? Is it your place to induce the wounds of a friend to someone to whom you are not a friend?

8) I infer no tone to your writing. I am merely looking at the words and arguements and responding,


I think I'm done for awhile/

Posted 12/04/2007 at 7:38am Allan Smith

Hope, you stated "I would argue that the adulteress was not an ex-...until meeting Jesus." You stated that Jesus "befriended". Did he "befriend" this adulteress ? Or did He simply treate her graciously, with mercy ?

I'm still looking for your reference for your position regarding those he "befriended". Can you point me ( or other readers ) to references which make it clear that he befriended certain groups of people ?

RE: the woman "taken in adultery", Jesus' words near the end of that story were "neither do I condemn thee". It would be redundant for Him to do so. See John 3 re: "condemned already".

Some infer from the "neither do I condemn thee" that Jesus didn't "judge" or "criticize". He is the Ultimate Judge ( see the Book of the Revelation, among other passages ) ... and I've already shown a couple passages where it might be reasonably inferred that He did indeed criticize.

As for whether or not I am Michelle's friend, I've never met her. I might say, however, that if we did meet ( for example, in the work place ) I expect that she would find me as friendly as the next co-worker. Where I work, I'm not only seen as having some rather controversial perspectives but I'm accepted as being one who serves and supports our other staff members. Believe it or not, I'm in customer support and have had the privilege of receiving EMail and letters of thanks ( besides the phone calls to my boss, combined with people telling him in person ) expressing appreciation for my deliberation in serving the customers patiently and thoroughly. I'm not the bad-boy that some here on Orato presume me to be. Unfortunately motives are imputed to people who speak out. I've been involved in enough forums to have learned that long ago.

Even Heather and Paul would get along with me just fine, in the work place.

That aside, I've been chastized ( tho gently ) for having responded as I did to a person who called Michelle "trash", and I'm being held to account for that. I can understand why.

Now, Hope, tell us your opinion about the rightness or wrongness of her actions. Were her actions a good choice ? Were they moral ? Would the Ultimate Judge approve of and/or condone Michelle's choices ?

It seems that you have a higher degree of comfort pointing out where "the messanger" is to be rebuked more than the woman about whom this article has been written. What's up with that ?

Posted 12/04/2007 at 8:39am Hope Frost

Allan

Quote: I'm still looking for your reference for your position regarding those he "befriended". Can you point me ( or other readers ) to references which make it clear that he befriended certain groups of people ?

-I never stated that He befriended anyone...the term befriended came from another. I was taking issue with your reference to ex-... in regarding the adulteress and the tax collector. I maintain that they were in the present tense.

-You make a solid case for the idea of judgment. However, I maintain (another statement of personal faith/opinion) that the judgement was against the sin, not the person.

-I do not know you nor do I know your affability at work, home or church. The description, however, is moot to the idea of whether or not you are Michelle's friend and in a position to provide the "wounds of a friend". As I have told you, I do not infer tone. I just respond to the arguements.

-My position on the rightness/wrongness of Michelle's actions involve compex opinions on faith, the law and ethics. Because of the elements of my faith, and my statement of unwillingness to enter into a scriptural war with you, I will hold them to myself and not hijack this thread further. Perhaps another time when I am more available to do so.

I will tell you this, regardless of whether Michelle's DECISIONS are congruent with what I would do or not wor what I feel should be done...I lover HER, respect HER and will support HER. Just as I would anyone whom I call friend, family or brother/sister in God.

-As mentioned previously, I am addressing your words and arguements. You seem like an intelligent, well spoken man. The thing that concerns me (and the reason I rejoined the discussion) was this:

Your arguements and statements are well written and organized and your conclusions follow your arguements convincingly. Sometimes, however, your final conclusions are just far enough from correct ( from my opinion or fact ), or far enough away from your premises, or your premises are just stated enough or not enough ( read: not the whole picture) that I am afraid some will miss the error. When most people speak incorrectly, or make mistakes (and we all do) it is usually painfully obvious. You make much more subtle errors. That is a tribute to your intelligence. Because of this (the subtlety) and the strength of your writing, it seems that most people choose not to enter into debate with you. In this case, I felt it necessary to speak up.

I do not dislike you or hold any ill will towards you. That too, is against my beliefs.

Now I know I am done for a while

Posted 12/04/2007 at 1:23pm Allan Smith

Hope, you stated "I lover HER, respect HER and will support HER. Just as I would anyone whom I call friend, family or brother/sister in God."

Is Michelle what some christians call a "born again christian" ? And are you also ? According to the christian faith, that's the only way she could be your "sister in God". Correct ?

You say "I lover HER, respect HER and will support HER.". Check out 1 Corinthians 5 and read it thoroughly. What are brothers / sisters in God / Christ to do when a brother / sister is involved in certain immoral practices ? Support them ? Respect them ? It's not love when we "support them" when they're engaged in immoral activities. I have no idea how a person can respect someone who's practing immorality of any kind.

How about checking out 2Tim 4:2 and see how it fits into the conversation. Does it apply to your friendship with / love Michelle ?

I'd be happy to give you my EMail addie ( Or Heather Wallace can give it to you, if it's not available here on Orato ) if you wish to conclude this off-line.

From my perspective, I believe it's healthy for other readers to read what you have to say HERE. You're one of the 1st to actually contribute in a meaningful and constructive way. Don't stop now !!

Posted 12/04/2007 at 1:44pm Hope Frost

I warned you that I would not get in to a scripture war with you and I will not. The only reason I posted on this blog to begin with was because people were judging her, in my opinion, unfairly. I stand by her now and always. I will leave you to your opinions, as is your right, but my opinion is now and will always be that she is a wonderful, caring and loving person.

Posted 12/04/2007 at 2:52pm Allan Smith

If ever there was a person who showed promise in being able to put me in my place and/or pin my ears back, it was ( is ? ) Hope and I've been looking forward to discourse with her on this ( if not other ) topics. I'm truly disappointed that she's decided ( long ago ? ) to withdraw just as she was making progress.

I don't say that either sarcasticly nor flippantly.

Posted 27/04/2007 at 8:45pm Patrick McKimmie

I'm going to be polite, but frankly I am getting tired of hearing Ms XManheart cry about this. Folks, she KNEW she was wrong. See, you need to get permission to take on second jobs while serving in the military, and you need permission to make statements to media outlets before you do so. Did she ask her command if she could pose in Playboy? No, she by her own admission did it behind their backs and once accepted, THEN she went and told them about it. So, the military gave her their highest performance rating based on what they KNEW...not what she was sneaking around doing.

Next, she used photos of her, in uniform and on the job, to get herself into the magazine. That is what we call an endorsement, and the Air Force does not endorse any commercial product. I can go to the Republican or Democratic convention to support a candidate, but I can't do it in uniform. Guess where I learned that....BASIC TRAINING! Guess who instructed at Basic Training....Ms. XManheart.

Would the Air Force have told her no had she said "I want to pose for Playboy"? No one will know, because she didn't ask. Did she check what her rights were before she took such a bold step? Nope, but if she did she obviously didn't care to follow the warnings.

Let's not be stupid, Ms Michelle. You were trained in these matters so you could train others. After the fact, you didn't help your cause by making public statements to the media without consulting public affairs. You questioned leadership and even insulted them publically.

You are using this incident to stay in the "spotlight" in an effort to keep your 15 minutes of fame going so you can, "hopefully" propel your acting and modelling career hopes.

And let's face facts about that "firewall five" EPR and the promotion statement: As a "fellow instructor" that WON Instructor of the Year, I can get firewall fives and promotion statements by simply staying awake at work. You know it, I know it, and most every other enlisted person knows it: The EPR ratings are overinflated. It's harder for a supervisor to rate anyone LESS then a firewall five!

Good luck to you Ms XManheart...press on with your life...but stop pretneding and stop lying. I serve honorably and I follow the rules that were taught to me, that I also teach to others. You didn't. You have no integrity, and that might just get you into Hollywood afterall.

Posted 20/11/2007 at 11:56am Luyen Dao

That's a great post Sgt.Mac - and the fact that you're in the military, really sheds some light on their procedure... - i agree with you, she should move on, whether it's hollywood career or otherwise, and not milk this so-called military scandal so much.

Posted 2/02/2008 at 12:24pm

Sgt Mac,

Kudos, you are right on target just like an AF smart bomb. We are taught in basic training all off-duty employment must be approved through our commander and the base legal office BEFORE we accept it. And your point regarding her EPR is also dead on. EPRs are inflated and her supervisor can only rate her based on what he/she has knowledge of.

I do have some compassion for Ms. Manhart though; she most definitely was used by Playboy. No one was going to buy the magazine to see her photos without the controversy. If she hadn't gone to her chain of command, it would surprise me if someone from the magazine didn't. They needed the scandal to sell the magazine. The only reason they agreed to do a pictorial on her is because they knew the scandal would happen with 100% certainty and boost sales of the magazine. I'm sure they have been very supportive of her the whole time and she probably still doesn't realize they just used her.

Ms. Manhart compares her pictorial to pictures of soldiers with their shirts off. That is hardly a similar comparison. I doubt any male military member (pardon the pun) could pose for Playgirl and not be separated from the service. I also believe if she had wanted to model swimwear for a catalog the AF would have approved a request for off-duty employment if it didn't interfere with her AF commitments.

I wish Ms. Manhart a happy and successful life after the Air Force. We are better off without her.

Posted 29/04/2008 at 7:41am

One point I didn't see addressed was Ms. Manhart's (or is it Crossmanhart? That is what the name tapes on your uniform said, so I'm slightly confused...) trivilaizing of DUIs. DUIs a re a HUGE deal in the Air Force. A single DUI will net you at the very least an LoR (which just one of can hurt your chances to get promoted) if not an Article 15 (meaning loss in pay grade i.e. demotion) and suspended driving priviliges on base for one year. That is a very hefty penalty for something that is a rather minor offense in the civilian world.

To those who said the military has no rule against posing for Playboy: there is also no rule against going to a protest in uniform, flag burning in uniform, or using the Air Force to promote something that could tarnish the Air Force's image, yet the MTIs, of which Michelle was one, tell you at least a dozen times a week during basic training that this is considered punishable by the military under the UCMJ. That's why Article 134 exists. The Air Force doesn't trust us with much common sense, and they can't possibly cover every single punishable offense with the UCMJ, but they expect that their troops can use at least a little discretion. Don't like it? Think it's unfair? Don't join the military. Simple.

A rule of thumb I have ALWAYS lived by is that if you are unsure of whether or not something is appropriate, ask. It's not hard, doesn't take much time, and really does save people from messes like this one. Michelle knew what she was doing was questionable and that is proven by the fact that she waited until AFTER she was sure she was going to be in Playboy before telling someone. If she thought it was alright, she wouldn't have bothered mentioning; if she was unsure she could have simply asked beforehand to clarify.

Being that Michelle was a 12 year Staff Sergeant, I wonder if she realized she was going nowhere in the Air Force and made a calculated move to point her life in a different direction. After all, look at the publicity stir she caused; payday, right? Yes, but at the expense of the Air Force's image. How exactly are the troops you trained supposed to respect you now? How will that reflect on their service to the Air Force?

Perhaps the military treated your case unfairly. Perhaps it was handled poorly. But don't feed us this bullshit about how you had no idea this would happen. Don't try to play the victim card, because I'm not buying it.

On the humorous side, at least I have a good story for my kids (if I ever have any). "Well kids, after I went through basic training, my TI got kicked out for posing for Playboy..."

Jason

Posted 22/09/2009 at 10:23am Paul Sime

Oh my god they demote a girl for posing in playboy it's not like this was a guy posing in some gay magazine. I mean it's not like some slutty magazine for female escorts it's playboy it's tasteful.